Comparison Test: Front-Wheel Drive Vs. Rear-Wheel Drive

Which is better: front- or rear-wheel drive?

Over the lion's share of the automobile's history, most cars had an internal-combustion engine in front of the driver powering the wheels in back of him. But the fuel crises of the 1970s changed that. Manufacturers scrambled to save weight to save fuel, and they adopted assorted variations of the front-engine/front-drive layout. With all of the drivetrain components under the hood, cars became smaller and lighter and still had adequate interior room. Plus, with the engine over the drivewheels, traction improved too. Today, the majority of family cars are front-drive.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Through it all, cars meant to be driven fast for fun have been steadfastly rear-drive. But all the while, drivers of less exotic front-drive sedans have taunted the rear-drive advocates with the front-drive's superior wet-weather traction and stability.

Lately there has been a resurgence of rear-wheel-drive family cars. And, their makers claim better traction and handling than front-drive models, thanks to sophisticated electronics.

Most Popular

Have traction and stability control systems rendered the whole push versus pull argument moot? To find out, we gathered pairs of 4-cylinder, 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder sedans. One in each pair had front-wheel drive, the other rear. We ran them through our normal battery of performance tests. Then, we soaked the track and repeated all the tests to replicate the conditions you would face on a rain-slick road.

Here's what we found.

4-CYLINDER COMPACT
We pitted a 151-hp Ford Focus ZX4 ST against a 189-hp Mercedes-Benz C230 Kompressor Sport sedan. Both cars were equipped with a manual transmission. The Focus had traction control, the Benz had ESP--DaimlerChrysler's combination traction and stability control system. Now comparing a $19,865 Ford to a $33,810 Mercedes-Benz might seem odd at first. However, the power-to-weight ratios of the cars are close enough to be comparable. As such, in dry acceleration to 60 mph, the C230 was two-tenths of a second quicker than the Ford. However, in the wet, that advantage was reduced to one-tenth of a second. In other words, the front-drive Ford lost less acceleration time in the wet than the Mercedes--but only slightly less.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

In our slalom and emergency-lane-change testing, we found the rear-drive Benz lost less speed than the Ford in wet testing versus dry. With its traction control turned off, the Ford tended to spin its inside tire when pushed. With the traction control active, the tire spin was controlled but the Ford would then understeer. Both are undesirable traits. And understeer happens more easily in the wet than in the dry.

In contrast to the front-drive Focus, the rear-drive C230 used its sophisticated ESP, sport suspension and sticky tires to produce very quick and agile handling in the dry tests. With the ESP shut off, our test driver noted that the car would oversteer slightly. (Actually, the ESP can't be completely killed. Pushing the button makes it less responsive.) So instead of plowing through a turn like an understeering car, the tail slides first. In severe cases, the car can spin out. To prevent this, many rear-drive cars are now equipped with stability control systems. In the wet, the ESP helped the C230 lose less speed than the Focus in the transition from dry handling to wet. Likewise, the C230 retained more grip in the wet than the front-drive Focus.

6-CYLINDER MIDSIZE
In one corner we have the $30,359 front-drive Toyota Camry XLE equipped with a 3.0-liter V6, 5-speed automatic, traction control and vehicle stability control (VSC). In the other corner, we have the nearly equal $31,485 Infiniti G35 Leather with a 3.5-liter V6, 5-speed automatic aided by traction control, and vehicle dynamic control (VDC). Plus, they weigh within 60 pounds of each other.

We expected the front-drive Camry to accelerate better in the wet than the Infiniti. But with the traction control shut off, the Camry spun its tires and produced slower times. We got our best numbers with the traction control on. Conversely, the Infiniti was quicker with the VDC off. The G35 lost less time in the transition from dry acceleration to wet. One reason is the Infiniti's stickier tires. Another is the Camry's soft suspension, which transfers more weight to the rear wheels thereby unloading the front wheels, causing more tire slippage.

The VSC in the Camry cannot be turned off. The harder you push the Camry, the slower it is through the handling tests. For that very reason the Camry is probably a safe choice as a family sedan.

The Infiniti is docile in its handling as long as the stability control is helping. With it off, the G35 takes a skilled hand to drive hard. We found it to be very quick to oversteer when you're lifting off the throttle. Despite this, the Infiniti lost fewer miles per hour in the transition from dry to wet in our slalom.

V8 FULL-SIZE
The more power you run through the wheels, the more it affects traction.

Our 4066-pound rear-wheel-drive Chrysler 300C came packing a 340-hp 5.7-liter Hemi V8 and Daimler-Chrysler's ESP stability and traction control system, equivalent to that in the Chrysler's corporate cousin, the Mercedes-Benz. The 3901-pound Pontiac Bonneville GXP was no slouch either, with its 275-hp version of Cadillac's 4.6-liter Northstar V8 driving its front wheels aided by GM's StabiliTrak. The Chrysler blasted to 60 mph in 6.12 seconds versus the Pontiac's 6.95 seconds. But when we watered down the track, the merits of front-wheel drive came into play. With traction control on or off, the big Pontiac lost less time in the wet than the Chrysler. In fact, with both cars' electronic systems off, the Pontiac was almost 6 percent quicker. This leads us to believe that in some powerful cars, front-wheel drive may have a distinct acceleration advantage when the road is slick.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

In the handling tests, the results were the opposite. The Bonneville understeered when pushed. And like the Camry, its stability control system intervened before the car reached the limits of grip. And that was true in the wet and dry. The Chrysler's ESP seemed to do a better job of allowing the car to reach its limit, and then subtly using electronics to keep the big car on course. In fact, our tester was able to duplicate the test times through our emergency lane change in the wet and dry--a real testament to the state of the car's ESP. However, with the ESP system defeated, like most powerful rear-drive cars, the 300C could be coaxed into oversteer.

a. ESP on. 1. Best E.T., trap speed may be attained separately. 2. Best stop hot or cold. 3. Best speed through 8 cones 75 ft. apart. Index of transient response. 4. Based on 60 simple weighted tasks.ALL SAID AND DONE
Neither front-wheel drive nor rear-wheel drive is really better than the other. Today's sophisticated traction and stability control systems are so good they can mask or enhance the true driving dynamics of a vehicle. That said, through most of this test we found the effectiveness of these systems had more to do with a car's performance than which wheels were actually doing the driving.